UNITED NATIONS,
June 21 – At the UN with
Antonio Guterres 17 months
into his term as Secretary
General, there's talk of
reform but little
transparency. The power-grab
of the resident coordinator
system has yet to include any
budget information; the
proponents have yet to answer
Press questions. Guterres'
proposed Global Service
Delivery Model (GSDM) may,
despite Guterres' murky
attempts to over-ride his
advisory team's
recommendations, be an
exception, as it would
eliminate jobs in New York,
jobs held by Americans. But
now the UN's Advisory
Committee on Administrative
and Budgetary Questions has
slammed the proposal, as Inner
City Press exclusively asked
about on June 14, see below.
In the UN Budget Committee at
the beginning of this week
members criticized Guterres'
request to vote on the
moving-target plan by the end
of the Committee's session on
Friday June 22. On June 21
Inner City Press asked
Guterres' deputy spokesman
Farhan Haq if Guterres
expected a vote by June 22,
and to explain why Guterres
wants to move more jobs to
Budapest given Prince Zeid's
critique of just enacted
Hungarian laws. Haq said the
placement of UN jobs has
nothing to do with human
rights - clearly - and
referred Inner City Press to
the spokesman for the
President of the General
Assembly, who said the session
is being extended to Sunday,
June 24. But since Inner City
Press has been evicted and
restricted, by Guterres'
spokespeople and Global
Communicator Alison Smale, it
cannot enter the UN to cover
this big money budget session
which it, alone about the UN
press corps, is following.
Today's UN is a corrupt
censor. On June 18, Inner City
Press asked when or if the
criticized Guterres proposal
would be considered by the
UN's Fifth (Budget" Committee.
Summary by UN: "The
Spokesperson was asked for
updates related to the General
Assembly’s consideration of
the Secretary-General’s Global
Service Delivery Model (GSDM)
report. The Spokesperson later
said that an advance copy of
the relevant report by the
Advisory Committee on
Administrative and Budgetary
Questions (ACABQ) had been
released last week. As of now,
no date had been announced for
this agenda item to be
introduced in the General
Assembly’s Fifth Committee."
Then Inner City Press was
helpfully informed that it
would be considered on June
19. At that meeting, Egypt for
the G77 said it was all being
rushed, as did Switzerland
(which would lose jobs) and
Uganda (natch). The Joint
Inspection Unit panned the
proposal, too. It would be
absurd to consider it before
the slated June 22 end of the
Committee session. But this is
the UN. Strangely, the US
Mission to the UN supported
the proposal, which would
involved its citizens, General
Service staff, losing jobs.
This an hour before a White
House press call about trade
with and tariffs on China. Are
these policies coherent? From
Guterres, on his way to the
World Cup, silence on this,
and on the US impending
withdrawal from the UN Human
Rights Council. We'll have
more on this. The GSDM
proposal, which Inner City
Press first wrote about in
early March, is to move to
cheaper location(s) back
office functions like human
resources, payments and
payroll.

Inner City Press
reported -- and has published
full documents on Patreon, here -- the four
cities in Guterres' initial
filing with ACABQ. On June 14,
Inner City Press asked
Guterres' deputy spokesman
Farhan Haq, UN transcript here: Inner
City Press: the Administrative
Committee on Advisory and
Budgetary Questions [Advisory
Committee on Administrative
and Budgetary Questions] has
put out a report on the
Secretary-General's proposal
on the global service delivery
mechanism, the three cities,
and moving… moving several
jobs. They… I guess the
word is, reject it.
They're saying that they don't
accept three cities.
There should only be two
cities, one in Africa.
And they're also saying that
the Secretary-General should
provide further information to
those impacted, including
staff. What… what is the
Secretary-General's response
to that? And… and seems
to… will slow down the
implementation. So
what's he going to do?

Deputy Spokesman:
Regarding that, we're going to
continue our dialogue with the
Member States, including
through the Advisory Committee
on Administrative and
Budgetary Questions, and we'll
follow up with the intention
of trying to get the system in
place as early as possible
next year." We'll have more on
this. The initially proposed
four cities were Budapest,
Kuala Lumpur, Mexico City and
Nairobi. The first three were
each the product of conflict
of interest. Guterres wanted
Budapest, those involved say,
in order to support or cover
up his Budapest move while at
UNHCR. But given Victor
Orban's statements, why is
Antonio "Mister Migration"
Guterres tweaking the process
to reward Hungary? On Kuala
Lumpur, UNDP in that country
"lent" John Kidd to mediate or
change the outside
consultants' recommendations -
and include KL. Now Malaysia
has said it cannot or will not
commit the requisite
resources, and Inner City
Press is informed - not by
Guterres spokespeople which it
has repeatedly asked - that
Kuala Lumpur is out. And then
there were three. Inner City
Press asked in each article in
this series, What will happen
to Entebbe which was set up by
DFS for their GFSS Global
Field Support Strategy? And
now Uganda's Museveni has
protested to Guterres, without
response. Museveni called the
decision "unfair;" his foreign
minister Sam Kutesa has
threatened to call a vote in
the General Assembly, of which
he was president (and
allegedly accepted bribes
from Patrick Ho of China
Energy Fund Committee, still
in Special Consultative status
with UN ECOSOC. On May 7,
Inner City Press asked
Guterres' spokesman Stephane
Dujarric, again, about the
GSDM and specifically about
Uganda - and it turns out
Guterres spoke with Kutesa,
though presumably not about
the CEFC bribery scandal, on
which Guterres has yet to act.
From the UN transcript:
Inner City Press: I want to
ask you again about this
global service delivery
mechanism. Seems that…
you'd said you were going to
give some granular guidance,
but I wanted to ask you if
it's the case that Kuala
Lumpur has dropped out of the
four cities and, if so, why,
and also if you can confirm
the receipt of a letter by the
President of Uganda
protesting their
non-selection in… despite
having this Entebbe situation
and the various critiques he's
made in it. There's been
a call… at least they've said
that Sam Kutesa, which… a name
from the past, may call a vote
in the General Assembly about
the selection of Nairobi over
them. And staff are…
are… many people and I've
asked here to see the
underlying recommendations of
how these cities were
selected.

Spokesman: Not aware of
Kuala Lumpur. On
Entebbe, the Secretary-General
spoke last week with the
Foreign Minister of Uganda to
explain the situation to
him. A number of
functions related to
peacekeeping will remain in
Entebbe.

Inner
City Press:
Could I ask you…

Spokesman: Go ahead.

Inner City Press: I want to
ask you another… since it
seem… so, was that called
before or after the reported
letter from the President?

Spokesman: It was
before. I'm not… I can't
confirm the letter's been
received." On May 18, Inner
City Press asked UN spokesman
Farhan Haq about reports in
Uganda, video here,
UN transcript here:
in Uganda it's reported that the Global
Service Delivery Mechanism
reform would result in the
loss of 290 jobs in the
Entebbe centre and 205 of
whom are Ugandan nationals,
and so this is all over
press there. And I've
also seen it described that
58 jobs from Geneva would be
moved to Budapest. Are
these the real numbers?
And… and when is the
time where the
Secretary-General will
actually publicly say the
impact of this proposed
reform?

Deputy Spokesman:
Well, this is still
something that's under
discussion, so I don't think
we can treat anything as
final. As we've made
clear, we will continue with
the use of Entebbe as a
regional base for many of
our functions." Many
now say, particularly seeing a
recent directive of ECLAC (on
Patreon here)
which is Alicia Barcena's
other job, that Mexico City as
a late replacement for Brazil
was a favor for her.
(Guterres, who only returned
to New York on May 4 and from
whose Lusophone garden party
in the UN on May 5 his UN
Security sought to ban
Inner City Press from covering
despite it being in the Media
Alert of Alison Smale's DPI,
will on May 7 and 8 be in Cuba
with ECLAC; we'll have more on
this). Impacted staff in
Santiago are being told they
can move to Mexico City - but
G staff in New York cannot.
We've put a memo on suspended
external recruitment on
Patreon,
here. Now staff have
provided Inner City Press with
these critiques and comments,
from before KL's drop out,
posted and awaiting response
from Guterres' Secretariat:
"So the basis on which to
choose the four locations,
potentially leading to
significant job losses
elsewhere, was made on the
basis of the three-page report
(A/72/801/Add.1) mentioned
above? Or are there other
reports and behind-the-scenes
decisions that aren't being
shared in this rather brief
article?

(2): In A/72/801/Add.1, one of
the Assessment criteria is
language requirements (II. 3.
(c) “The specific requirements
of different parts of the
Secretariat, including
language requirements”).
However, the results of the
assessment indicated that
Budapest, Nairobi, Kuala
Lumpur and Mexico City were
the highest scoring as they
were deemed, among other
criteria, to have “sufficient
language capacity to serve
global clients”, IV. 6. (c).
Knowing that there are six
official languages of the UN:
Arabic, Chinese, English,
French, Russian and Spanish
with English and French as the
working languages, how did the
drafters of the Report of the
Secretary-General and those
who carried out the assessment
(whomever they are) appraise
that these locations do have
“sufficient language capacity”
unless it was decided that the
official languages of the UN
is only English, and
incidentally Spanish?

(3): It is striking that the
costs (staff, operations,
setup) do NOT include the
heavy and continuing costs of
headquarters staff trying to
work with out-stationed staff.
The 2016 JIU report
identified this as a weakness
in past business case analysis
and it is repeated here. I see
the costs here with my FAO
colleagues trying to work with
Budapest and they are quite
significant in terms of lost
staff time." Guterres? On
April 18, Inner City Press
asked Guterres' spokesman
Dujarric again, UN transcript
here:
Inner City Press: I've asked a
couple times about this global
service delivery mechanism,
which sounds very dry, but
would actually move 600 jobs
out of New York to Mexico
City, Budapest…

Spokesman: You know, I
apologise. I will have
language for you on that.

Inner City Press: Even more
than language, I want to add
an extra question before…
maybe this… maybe the language
is already written, but there
seems to be a question, not
only just about how the cities
were selected, particularly
Budapest, where, in the past,
the Secretary-General, António
Guterres, in his former job,
already moved jobs to
Budapest. And I'm
wondering, does he have any
thoughts now that there are
protests about Viktor Orbán
and the position on migration
of moving more jobs to
Hungary?

Spokesman: I will get
back to you on all of that.

Inner City Press: And… and
has… how was it decided that
four cities was the right
run…? There seems to be
a question about that.

Spokesman: I will get
back to you. " But he hasn't.
On April 13, Inner City Press
again asked Guterres'
spokesman Dujarric who dodged
and then said he'd get
"granular guidance" - then
hours later left for the
weekend having provided no
information. From the UN
transcript: Inner City Press:
I had also asked you sometime
before about this… this is I
think you will know about, the
global supply delivery
mechanism or GSDM, and the
proposal by the
Secretary-General to move jobs
out of New York and elsewhere
to four cities. I mean,
it's now an official document,
the ACABQ [Advisory Committee
on Administrative and
Budgetary Questions], and I
guess I wanted… what I'm
hearing from people in the
process is that the
consultant's recommendation of
cities, in fact, were not the
ones that the
Secretary-General has proposed
to a ACABQ, that there were
some changes, for example, to
include Mexico City, that…
that an individual from Kuala
Lumpur, from… from Malaysia
UNDP was involved, a Mr. John
Kidd, and somehow Kuala Lumpur
showed up…

Spokesman: You know, I
think there's a process.
The report will go to the
Fifth Committee.

Inner
City
Press:
My question is whether the
underlying consultant's report
that was paid for with public
money will be released, as I
understand ACABQ has asked
they should get it, but I’m
saying since it's the public's
money…

Spokesman: I have no
information it to share with
you on this at this
point. Yes, go ahead.

Inner
City
Press:
And you said, I asked you,
it’s not just sharing, in your
previous answer you had said,
“Don't worry. Staff have
a right to move.” That
was my understanding of your
answer, when I said the effect
of this proposal, just as to
the United States…

Spokesman: I think I
said… the thrust of my answer
is that there are procedures
in place.

Inner
City
Press:
But my question to you, and
maybe you'll answer it or not,
is that G staff have no right
to move, even if they wanted
to move to Mexico City and
keep their jobs, they are
unable, as G staff, to do so.

Spokesman: I will try to
get some granular guidance.

Inner City Press: On
ECLAC [Economic Commission for
Latin America and the
Caribbean], as well, because I
see an amendment on moving
ECLAC to Mexico. It’s
public money.

Spokesman: I'm not
debating the fact that it's
public money." Then, no
answer. Public money wasted,
without accountability. We'll
have more on this.

Inner City Press
was exclusively told by
whistleblowers that Guterres
wanted to pick Budapest as he
did at UNHCR - among his other
nicknames he's become known to
some as Antonio "Budapest"
Guterres. There's talk of
wasted spending to try to get
Entebbe on the list. On April
5 after publishing this
exclusive, Inner City Press
asked Guterres' spokesman
Stephane Dujarric, who six
hours later provided no
explanation at all. From the
UN transcript: Inner City
Press: My understanding is,
after a review of 45 cities,
António Guterres has selected
four cities as the winners of
684 UN posts: Mexico
City, Nairobi, Kuala Lumpur,
and Budapest, which it had
chosen previously. And I
just wanted to know, it seems
like it's a big thing that
they've just told ACABQ what
the four cities are.
What's the logic behind
it? What's the impact
on… on… are the people… are
people that are employed here,
particularly local staff… are
they able to move to these new
jobs, or are they going to
terminated? Are new jobs
going to be found for
them? And how did he
select these four out of the
45 cities listed?

Spokesman: It went
through a rigorous process you
know, I will have to check,
but my understanding is that,
obviously, whenever jobs are
moved, staff always have the
option of moving with the
post. But let me try to
get some more detailed
language on that." Six hours
later, nothing. Inner City
Press also asked the spokesman
for the President of the
General Assembly, who replied
"On the Secretary-General’s
Global Service Delivery Model
(GSDM) report, an advance
unedited version of the report
has been shared with Member
States and is being considered
today by the Advisory
Committee on Administrative
and Budgetary Questions
(ACABQ). The report will then
be considered by the Fifth
Committee in its second
resumed session in May before
going to the General Assembly
plenary. Fifth Committee
decisions are traditionally
based on consensus." We'll
have more on this. Earlier
documents referred to
Locations A (Budapest) B
(Nairobi) C (Kuala Lumpur) and
D (Mexico City) in the
report. The
supplementary information
containing the locations were
distributed to the ACABQ
members on April 4, Inner City
Press has learned. The other
(losing) candidates: "The
United Nations Secretariat is
currently conducting
negotiations with the relevant
member states. The names of
the locations will be released
to the committees through
supplementary information. The
45 locations include Abidjan,
Addis Ababa, Almaty, Amman,
Apia, Bangkok, Beirut, Bonn,
Brindisi, Budapest,
Cairo, Copenhagen, Dakar,
Dubai, Entebbe, Fukuoka,
Geneva, Incheon, Istanbul,
Johannesburg, Kathmandu,
Kigali, Kingston, Kuala
Lumpur, Kuwait City,
Lusaka, Manama, Mexico
City, Montevideo, Nairobi,
New Delhi, New York, Niamey,
Panama City, Port of Spain,
Rabat, Rio de Janeiro, Rome,
Santiago, Suva, Tashkent,
Valencia, Vienna, Washington
D.C., Yaoundé." Some are
surprised Guterres didn't go
with Yaounde, Cameroon, since
he took Biya's golden statue.
Washington DC never had a
chance... The
whistleblowers tell Inner City
Press that dozens of jobs
would be eliminated in New
York, 75% of them held by
women, of whom Guterres speaks
so much. More than three
dozens of those fired would be
from the United States, which
as was pointed out in
September pays a quarter of
the bills. What ever the
wisdom, more transparency is
needed. But to the contrary,
Guterres and his Global
Communicator Alison Smale continue
to restrict the Press that
asks, awarding its long time
UN work space to a no-show
Egyptian state media, Sanaa
Youssef of Akhbar al Yom. On
February 28, Guterres' UN
Security told Inner City Press
to stop
recording, as Guterres was
offering his "very very warm
regards" to Sisi. Guterres'
spokesman Stephane Dujarric
does not answer Inner City
Press' written questions; he
evicted and still restricts
Inner City Press. This is
today's UN. And this: after
Inner City Press asked at noon
on March 2 about Guterres'
"reform" and his spokesman
Stephane Dujarric promised to
look into it and provide an
answer, five hours later...
nothing. Some reform. From the
UN's March 2 transcript:
Inner City Press: I've
been hearing a lot talk about
this “global service delivery
model” and some people it
seems if… unless I have it
wrong, that there's going to
be an outsourcing or
offshoring of human resources
and payroll jobs, and from
what I've heard they're mostly
general service jobs,
basically a straight
elimination of some 90
posts. But what I wanted
to know is people don't know
where it's going. One,
can the general service staff,
if they choose to, follow the
jobs? And is it true
that Brazil is one of the
candidates? There's just
a lot of… it's supposedly by
March 15th they have to
present…Spokesman: Let
me… I will try to get an
update for you." Five hours
later, nothing. Even on the
environment, the UN's last
refuge as it fails under
Antonio Guterres on conflict
prevention and
anti-corruption, the UN is in
decay. Guterres' deputy Amina
J. Mohammed has refused Press
questions since November on
her role in signing 4000
certificates to export from
Nigeria and Cameroon
endangered rosewood already in
China. Guterres, Mohammed and
Alison Smale's only response
has been to censor
and continue to restrict
the Press which asks, despite
5000 signature petition,
UNanswered. Now whistleblowers
in UNEP have written to
Guterres, and excusively sent
a copy to Inner City Press on
"UNEP mis management,
harassment and misuse of
government resources Dear Mr.
Solheim, It is almost 1.5
years since you became the
Executive Director of
UNEP. While our
wish would have been to
address the issues below with
you in person, this message is
being sent to you anonymously
for our protection, and given
threats, harassment and
actions being taken against
staff who have tried to speak
out, particularly as pertains
to financial and human
resource anomalies. i)
Executive Office – Waste of
government resources: We
constantly receive feedback on
the limited financial
resources in the
organisation. Since you
came on board, you have
established numerous positions
in the Executive Office,
leading to an estimated 25
positions with about 14
professionals, while all
previous Executive Directors
worked effectively with only
about 7 professionals...The
additional cost of these
positions is over USD 1.1
million in a year. These
funds could well be used to
implement activities that meet
our obligations and those of
our Member States. You
have gone ahead to establish a
temporary P5 Deputy Chief of
Staff, in addition to having a
Chief of Staff D1 and a P3
Special Assistant to the Chief
of Staff. The new
position will cost another USD
206,000. This adds up to
USD 1.3 million wasted
resources. How inefficient can
an Executive Office be to
warrant so many staff and
special support to one person,
when there are no sufficient
resources to support
activities in the substantive
Divisions! You have
inappropriately announced to
the Member States that you
will be advertising the
positions of the D2 Director,
Ecosystem Division and
Director, New York Office
without even discussing this
with Mette Wilkie and Elliot
Harris, the incumbents of the
posts respectively. The
organisation is being led by
your personal preferences and
those of, the Chief of Staff,
Anne LeMore who you brought
into the organisation -and
Sami Dimassi, Officer
in-Charge of Corporate
Services, whom you appointed
against the decision of OHRM,
given the un-merited
selection. You appointed a P5,
Gary from another agency to
come and lead the Policy
Division, while you have an
already capable D1, Sheila
Aggarwal-Khan. This is
another example of a wasted
USD 205,600.
You are hardly available to
provide leadership to the
organisation as you are
constantly traveling together
with your special assistants
most specifically Hao
Chen. Millions of
resources have been lost in
your business class travels,
some of which are not
necessary. ii) Corporate
Services Division, illegal
actions, personal gain &
conflict of interest: You have
still maintained Sami Dimassi
as officer in charge of
Corporate Services Division,
despite the temporary
selection being rejected by
OHRM. We wonder why Sami has
been mandated to be making key
management decisions yet he
has not gone through a proper
recruitment process as officer
In-charge of that Division and
has no qualifications and
experience to match the job
profile. His main activities
are scuttling other people’s
careers and family lives. It
is unimaginable that United
Nations can allow a staff
member in the calibre of a
Director to continue in the
system and continue
threatening other staff
members including senior staff
while quoting your name. The
Secretary General in his
previous address to staff has
stated that he will not
entertain any form of
harassment in the Organization
yet Sami continues to do this
in all his dealing with staff
from certain quarters. The
following are a few examples
of the mandate you have
granted to your appointee
against the decision of the
United Nations Secretary
General. Sami who is a
Lebanese national, with
Canadian citizenship in the
system, has appointed Fadi
Abou-Elias, another Lebanese
to lead the budget activities,
separating these from finance
and the able leadership of
Moses Tefula who is an expert
with a doctorate in the field
and with extensive experience.
It is obvious to any expert in
accounting and finance, the
separation has been done to
benefit specific individuals.
Also, other UN agencies have
consolidated these functions.
Sami subsequently created a P3
position in the budget unit
and appointed yet another
Lebanese national, Joseph K.
against the programme support
budget (PSC). These
funds are supposed to provide
programme support to the MEAs
and Divisions that bring in
the resources, in addition to
corporate administrative
support. In addition,
Sami and Fadi managed to
enforce the selection of
Fadi’s wife Nada Matta as P3
Fund Management Officer in the
Science Division (where Sami
worked previously) after being
placed on temporary post to
enable a quick
appointment. All
budgetary matters of the
Division are well sorted by
her husband Fadi, bringing a
conflict of interest, since he
is the same one managing the
organisation’s overall budget,
against the UN financial rules
and regulations. Much of her
work is managed by her husband
which is obvious in her change
in decisions and guidance
provided to the Division, once
she receives her husband’s
input to questions she may
have answered without much
knowledge. Recently, you
appointed Emanuele Corino, P4
to lead all human resources
and administration
issues. Emanuele is no
expert in HR and has very
limited knowledge in the
field. He is an IT-expert
Sir. You have taken this
responsibility from a capable
P5, Mariama, with decades of
expertise in the field.
Emanuele came on board as a
consultant through UNOPS, who
was then appointed as a UNOPS
staff and despite Secretariat
questions of his illegal
appointment to UNEP he
continued to lead procurement
activities. He is being
supported by an excellent P4
who is an expert in HR and
would better lead this docket
if not the P5 Mariama.
In addition, the cost of
paying Mariama,USD 205,600goes
to waste as all her work has
been handed over to an
incapable Emanuele, and staff
under her supervision deployed
to other Divisions. Emanuele
is propagating the use of
UNOPS in hiring of HR services
and procurement services.
Consultants and staff,
including in your office Sir,
have been hired through UNOPS
to circumvent the UN rules and
regulations and he endorses
it, being a beneficiary of
such illegal processes. It
also leads to misuse of
resources provided by member
states as UNOPS charges for
these services that are
provided for free by UNON. He
is doing all this in
collaboration with two senior
HR officers in UNON and a
senior Finance officer in
UNON-DAS who has been promised
to take over a position in
UNEP. We request for a full
investigation into this matter
and the illegal conduct of the
staff including misuse of his
position. All the above
positions have been granted to
men, while you continue to
preach gender (and in respect
to the gender parity strategy)
but unfortunately you are not
leading by practice.
Sir, it is now public
knowledge that the Chief of
Finance in your organization,
Moses Tefula has filed a case
in the United Nations Dispute
Tribunal for suspension of
illegal action to move him,
and to suddenly and
unilaterally reclassify his
position to a post downwards
and transfer him to a position
not commensurate with his
grade. More details are
publicly available in the UNDT
website on UNDP/NBI/017/124.
Sami and his support group is
the architect behind this
illegal action so that he can
hand-over the powerful docket
of Senior Finance Officer to
his friends as is already
happening. Sir, we remind you
that the Member States have
entrusted UNEP with close to a
billion US dollars of annual
contributions and it is
un-imaginable that management
of such resources can be
delegated to friendship
circles. While management may
not like some staff members
especially those from the
black race to hold such key
positions, we cannot allow the
contributions of member states
which come from the taxes of
their nationalities to be
jeopardized. iii) Harassment
and illegal actions to get rid
of colleagues who do not meet
your, Sami Dimassi and Anne Le
More’s liking. Efforts have
been made to cause instability
in the Divisions with missions
purported to review the
Division. This has
created fear among staff,
uncertainty and worry on who
will be gotten rid of, or who
will be moved to an
extra-budgetary post (XB) or
contract non-renewal, in order
to be sent home. In this
case XB is assumed to be any
funds that are not from the
regular budget or from the
Environment Fund. This
was done in the Regional
Office for Africa, the
Communication Division, Geneva
office and other offices where
missions are being undertaken
to threaten staff. A brutal
example is the move of a P3
Regional Information Expert
from Bahrain, along with four
others because Sami did not
like her, despite her previous
performance appraisals meeting
and in some instances
exceeding expectations.
She has a young family of two
children whom she has had to
leave in Bahrain under threat
that she either takes up the
move to Nairobi or leaves the
organisation. She was
moved from a regular budget
(RB) post, to temporary
Environment Fund (Fund
Reserve) for one year and is
to then be moved to an
extra-budgetary (XB) post that
has no resources, in the
expectation that if no funds
are forthcoming or if she is
not able to mobilise funds,
she will be out on the
streets. This is after
service to the organisation
for 10 years. This is brut ant
misuse of authority by Sami.
It is against the
“Family-friendly policies” of
the UN system wide policy on
gender parity which requires
decision on staff mobility to
be communicated at least six
months prior to the moves and
moves scheduled six months
following the completion of
the school year or accommodate
the family needs otherwise as
appropriate. The poor staff
member is under distress,
separated from her family who
are in a foreign duty station
and has to incur personal
trips to see her young ones.
In contrast, you, Sir, have
approved that your friend, a
D1, Lisa Svensson can work
from Europe, because for
personal reasons she does not
wish to work in Nairobi.
Her big office in Nairobi
remains vacant with her name
and organisational equipment
while the same has to be
provided again by another
office in Europe. She
leads the marine team remotely
as the rest of the staff under
her responsibility are in
Nairobi. Sir, how inhuman can
you and Sami be, to summon one
staff member, who is from a
developing country against her
wish, separating her from her
young family, but provide a
golden platter for another who
is from a developed country...
When you came on board in
2016, you immediately began
with changing the
organisation’s name, claiming
not to understand acronyms,
which have been used since the
establishment of the
organisation over four decades
ago. The whole world
knows UNEP, UNDP, UNICEF
etc. Are you purporting
that these should have been UN
development, UN children… so
that one day you Sir, can
understand what they do, and
that the work of the
organisation has not been
understood since 1972 due to
its use of the acronym UNEP?
Despite numerous interventions
during the meetings of the
Committee of Permanent
Representatives (CPRs)
questioning the legitimacy of
this change from UNEP to UN
Environment, you have given a
deaf ear. Most are the
times that you open the
session and then take off,
leaving your Deputy Executive
Director Ibrahim Thiaw to find
excuses for you... You forget
that the rules are not set by
the organisation, but through
it by the Member States of the
UN... You talk of reform and
efficiency. With all the
above, and many more examples
that would result in a very
lengthy document,you have
failed the organisation, you
have failed us. Your actions
are provoking staff to boycott
the next Town Hall meeting in
respect of all colleagues
affected by your actions and
those of your circle of
friends that are running the
organisation to peril. Our
plea is to call for an
immediate audit of the
organisation, intervention and
investigation." We'll have
more on this. A Climate Risk
event was held at the UN on
January 31, complete with a
delayed press conference with
four speakers. Inner City
Press asked them about the
role of the UN, not just as a
venue but as an actor, with a
Deputy Secretary General Amina
J. Mohammed who in 2017 signed
4000 certificates for
already-exported endangered
rosewood in China. The UN
Global Compact accepted CEFC
China Energy until Inner City
Press repeated asking about
its role as beneficiary of a
UN bribery scheme to get oil
in Uganda and Chad; China
Energy Fund Committee is
*still* in Special
Consultative status with
ECOSOC. Periscope video here,
since the UN has withheld its,
under UNTV boss Alison
Smale. Among the
panelists, Betty Yee,
California's Controller,
repeatedly cited transparency.
Fred Samama of Amundi to his
credit acknowledged there is a
danger of green-washing. Peter
Damgaard Jensen of PKA said
the UN could / should help
emerging markets. (This is
true, but today in Cameroon
for example, the UN only
supports colonialism and
exploitation.) Iconic Jack
Ehnes of CalSTRS appeared
sympathetic. But will they
continue to blithely provide a
platform for the greenwashing
not only of oil companies like
CEFC China Energy, but of
censoring UN officials like
Amina J. Mohammed, who helped
export endangered rosewood
then refused all Press
questions on it, and continues
to censor and restrict the
Press which asks? We'll have
more on this - and on “The
Investor Agenda.” Amid UN
bribery scandals, failures in
countries from Cameroon to
Yemen and declining
transparency, today's UN does
not even pretend to have
content neutral rules about
which media get full access
and which are confined to
minders or escorts to cover
the General Assembly.

Inner City Press,
which while it pursue the
story of Macau-based
businessman Ng Lap Seng's
bribery of President of the
General Assembly John Ashe was
evicted by the UN Department
of Public Information from its
office, is STILL confined to
minders as it pursues the new
UN bribery scandal, of Patrick
Ho and Cheikh Gadio
allegedly bribing President of
the General Assembly Sam
Kutesa, and Chad's Idriss
Deby, for CEFC China Energy.

Last week Inner
City Press asked UN DPI where
it is on the list to be
restored to (its) office, and
regain full office - and was
told it is not even on the
list, there is no public list,
the UN can exclude,
permanently, whomever it
wants. This is censorship, and
has been accepted and even
encouraged by what has become
the UN Censorship Alliance,
which accepted funds from Ng
Lap Seng's South South News
and had Inner City Press
ejected from the UN Press
Briefing Room as it inquired
into the story.

When this UNCA
held its annual meeting on
January 29, it could barely
reach quorom (Periscope here);
it covered over the glass
doors of the clubhouse the UN
gives it with a sign board.